Tuesday, July 24, 2012

Another Thought About the Penn State Perversion

There have been too many perversions that have gone unpunished at Penn State, or punished too little too late.

The former assistant coach engaged in unchecked child abuse, often many times with one victim. The head coach of the program refused to report the matter to the city authorities. Trustees and administrative leaders also swept the allegations under the rug. To the leadership and head coaches involved in the up-keep of this multi-million dollar program, sacrificing the well-being of young children was worth the price of keeping a lid on the rampant perversion by one of its staff members.

Following an extensive investigation by a former FBI official, Louis Freeh, the NCAA has hit back, hitting all the way to vacating fourteen years of football victories, shutting the Nittany Lions of out of four years of Bowl games, and even levying a $60 million fine.

It is a perversion of justice to judge those who had nothing to do with the perversions unjudged. The young men and women who played and supported the game do not deserve to be punished for the wicked choices of a select few.

Another, more subtle yet pervasive culprit in this whole moral massacre, however, has remained unconsidered.

Penn State is a government institution, funded by public monies, founded by the General Assembly of the Commonwealth in 1855. The state of Pennsylvania administers the school through the state legislature, and the state has lent its authority and prestige with its name.

The collusion of government and education is evoking the elements of a greater scandal, the reluctant of individuals on the public dole to blow the whistle on egregious misconduct.

By separating the power of the state from higher learning, tuition would increase, but the quality of care and morale would increase, too, as private institutions which depend on drawing consumers instead of drawing upon taxpayers have a vested interests in presenting a commanding integrity.

This line of thinking may be too abstract to some, but private firms risking their own resources do less harm to the community and the state whether they expose wrongdoing or not, and the incentive to end misconduct is far greater, since the market punishes private firms more swiftly with a dissolution of trade and conduct, whereas citizens must seek redress through the state when opposing public institutions.

No comments:

Post a Comment